When there is competition, there are winners, there are losers, and there are significantly more losers than winners. There is a _reward_ for winning, whether that be tangible (a trophy, or monetary sum), intangibile (pride of winning), or reproductive (potential mates prefer winners). And therein lies the rub - the losers can surely "live a good life"....depending on your definition....but they surely are not in a Utopian setting, as there are intangibile "rewards" to losing as well - lack of partners, shame, insecurity, among many others.
It doesn't matter the arena of competition, the implications of competition are the same - but to different extremes.
Basically, as long as we have different values, there will be different "competitions" going on. The only reason we even consider some people "successful" is precisely because winning in certain areas bring something most of us value (money). But in an abundance-utopia, money would have no value, so the only important outcome of competition would be status among the people that value whatever you competed in. Which seems quite good to me - I'm sure there will be explicit "non-competition" communities as well for those who really don't want it (meditative monks and such?!).
Do note there is also a "Meta" competition which each of those subjects you mentioned are all vying for market share amongst each other. For example - Twilight fan subculture is dwindling, online gaming subculture is growing. Given a finite, albeit considerably large, number of resources, each subject, at the "Meta" level, competes with each other for the [wo]manhours of eyes spent and invested on it.
To get to the bigger point: Within each of those "arenas" you posited, there are few winners and many losers. Money actually is a minor concern even in our society today. Money is a means to an end.
A "fictional" fiat currency does not hold inherent value but the purchasing power that comes with it!
And actually, amongst professional poker and golf players, the top players have shown time and time again to have already removed themselves from the prize money and are in it for the victory, despite the "Purse" being what every casual observer sees. Wearing the Green Jacket of the Masters means significantly more to many of the seasoned players than the money.
In your "abundance-utopia-with-competition" the status is everything, and to be quite honest, it has already been everything. Save for the barest of bones, rags-to-riches stories of people going from dead broke to being successful, many people at the top of their fields would have been fine, monetarily speaking, if they didn't have this success.
But the key phrase here is "monetarily speaking." -
- More importantly to many people than the money, the mating opportunities do not come to losers. We are closer to chimps than bonobos. That inherently is not a utopia. You're missing this.
It should, however, be possible to opt out of competition (in any particular area) and still live a good life. I think it's perfectly possible to achieve that in a post-scarcity society. Furthermore, a political & moral advancement could ensure that all "common" wealth (infrastructure, land, property, energy) is more-or-less equally distributed (i.e. "you don't deserve to own that penthouse just because you were born in the right family"), perhaps using taxation by "renting" from the society (e.g. more valuable property owners would be paying more taxes/rents to the rest of us, so they will only be able to keep it if they produce outstanding amount of wealth themselves). Then, the only competition would be based on things like intellect and creativity.
The story Manna [0] includes something similar, where energy is distributed equally among all citizens, who can then "use" it (e.g. to create food, clothes, ...) or "donate" it (e.g. to interesting science projects).
[0] http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm